|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican Tolerance?
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
It has been assumed by some, that 'tolerance' might even be seen as a defining feature of Anglicanism.
This may have been due to the 'broad church' nature of the Church of England that has since the 16thC contained those of quite different theologies and churchmanship. As a national, or established church, this has been quite possible. With the expansion of the Church of England outside the confines of the British Isles, and the growth of something called 'Anglicanism', some might argue that this tolerance of other views and theologies within the same church, has come to be seen as a defining feature.
Yet historically, this tolerance has not always been the case. To use a few seleted examples by way of illustration, in the 18thC there was a degree of hostility towards 'enthusiasm' and was a contributory factor, but clearly not the only one, in the split between the Church of England and the Methodists.
Similarly, in the 19thC there was a persecution in some dioceses of so-called 'ritualists' which led to Father Tooth being imprisoned for wearing eucharistic vestments, and various contentious episcopal admonitions and lawsuits.
Within the 20thC Mervyn Stockwood, regarded by some as a 'liberal' and by others as a high church liberally minded martinet, came down quite heavily on those who departed from the canons with regard to use of liturgy.
In the 21stC there are those who would wish to censure the celebration of gay marriages, or actively gay clergy from entering the episcopate.
There was also a recent display of mild hysteria, name calling and calls for the system of church government to be changed, when some found that the House of Laity hadn't voted the way they wished.
Tolerant? What are the opinions of other shipmates?
Would Shipmates care to discuss this?
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Anglican tolerance has been via media type, and it needs to be born in mind it is that type. That means that it always requires a certain amount of conformity to the norms.
This is very different to the type of tolerance practiced by non-conformity, which was the freedom to practice but not to enforce on others what you practice on others.
If you want to see the difference you just need to look at the vote from the URC of same sex partnerships. It is not saying all URCs will offer same sex partnerships. It was solely there to allow those who want to and in a position to, to do so. In other words we are preserving the rights of some congregations to act as they think right even if we disagree with them. If the vote had asked for all churches to allow civil partnership on the premises, many pro civil partnerships would have voted against. As it was many anti civil partnership individuals voted for the motion.
That was how the Congregational Church got women ministers in 1914! Need I say more. Oh my home congregations theological range make Anglicans look as if they are singing from the same song sheet. We went from basically Unitarians to people who make Reform look liberal. Not just that but if I am right they served on the same eldership at the same time.
It is the difference between melting pot and multiculturalism as theories of racial co-existence.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Does tolerance mean total agreement?
Can an organisation not hold different views and be allowed to express those views?
It seems to me, as an outsider, that the latest synod vote - on women bishops - showed that intolerance was displayed towards certain people in the House of Laity because some people didn't get their way.
Wouldn't a tolerant Church of England have tolerated the 'minority' view that ended the majority desire for women bishops for now?
On that comment about minorities, it seems that the 'against women' minority is not tolerated whereas the pro-gay minority is tolerated.
I suppose a minority is only listened to and tolerated if you are prejudiced in their favour already.
It's a shame that not all minorities are tolerated equally - or not tolerated equally perhaps.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's a strange situation, because within recent memory CofE has projected the image of a thorougly benign, almost self-effacing institution, with mild vicars, charming old churches, and a low-key attempt not to offend anyone. Of course, this wasn't the whole story, but it was the picture that many outsiders would have had.
This seems to be changing. It must be partly because the media has become more hostile to religion, and is more willing to highlight the gaps between society's secular values and the values of the CofE. Secondly, institutional religious decline and marginalisation create either defiance, which the media focuses on, or assimilation; the CofE has adopted both, which gives it the impression of being at war with itself, again creating a struggle that appeals to the media.
The public image and the reality within the church may have little connection with each other, but most people only have the image to go on, because they no longer have much personal connection to the CofE.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think the CofE traditionally went for comprehension rather than tolerance as such: that is, establishing a common core of belief and practice to which all reasonable people were intended to be able to subscribe, or at the very least one which they could accept and have the good manners to keep any questions to themselves. This is, to me, the spirit which you find in e.g. the Preface to the Prayer Book and the Royal declaration which precedes the 39 Articles.
That said, one of the grounds on which the CofE was sometimes attacked by e.g. some Welsh nonconformists was that it was insufficiently exclusive- the idea that anybody could go to church (Bad thing) but you had to be good to go to chapel (Good Thing).
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think Anglicanism is tolerant - of opinions. It expects conformity to the rules that are agreed, even while it allows dissent. Nobody has any intention of trying to force out people who disagree with ordaining or consecrating women, but allowing room for the opinion is not the same as allowing room for the practice. This is different from the position in the Roman Catholic church where priests and nuns even advocating changes in church policies can be slapped down pretty hard.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's a strange situation, because within recent memory CofE has projected the image of a thorougly benign, almost self-effacing institution, with mild vicars, charming old churches, and a low-key attempt not to offend anyone. Of course, this wasn't the whole story, but it was the picture that many outsiders would have had.
This seems to be changing. It must be partly because the media has become more hostile to religion, and is more willing to highlight the gaps between society's secular values and the values of the CofE. Secondly, institutional religious decline and marginalisation create either defiance, which the media focuses on, or assimilation; the CofE has adopted both, which gives it the impression of being at war with itself, again creating a struggle that appeals to the media.
The public image and the reality within the church may have little connection with each other, but most people only have the image to go on, because they no longer have much personal connection to the CofE.
That is extremely well written, if I may say so? I suspect you have encapsulated part of the situation very accurately.
I remember the clerical dons when I was an undergraduate being mildly (so typically Anglican in that respect) disaaproving of the 'All Gas and Gaiters' image - a series that at the time encapsulated a view of the CofE quite near the mark.
On the other hand, my elderly and dearly loved parish priest who was hugely 'successful' in whatever way one wishes to measure that, used to hoot with laughter at the series, and just loved it. He saw it an an affectionate piss-take; with the emphasis on 'affectionate'. I suspect that he had the nous to see that times would not always be thus. When I enunciated the dons' disapproval, this ninety-something year old replied 'well, they are a little out of touch in their ivory towers aren't they?'
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think Anglicanism is tolerant - of opinions. It expects conformity to the rules that are agreed, even while it allows dissent. Nobody has any intention of trying to force out people who disagree with ordaining or consecrating women, but allowing room for the opinion is not the same as allowing room for the practice. This is different from the position in the Roman Catholic church where priests and nuns even advocating changes in church policies can be slapped down pretty hard.
I'm not so certain, Arthosemyfeet. There's plenty of passive-aggressive behaviour towards dissenters and, on the departure of one anti-OWP cleric, I heard a chorus of "It's about time," and "we never thought he'd take the hint." We're really not as innocent on this as we like to think we are.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does tolerance mean total agreement?
Can an organisation not hold different views and be allowed to express those views?
It seems to me, as an outsider, that the latest synod vote - on women bishops - showed that intolerance was displayed towards certain people in the House of Laity because some people didn't get their way.
Wouldn't a tolerant Church of England have tolerated the 'minority' view that ended the majority desire for women bishops for now?
On that comment about minorities, it seems that the 'against women' minority is not tolerated whereas the pro-gay minority is tolerated.
I suppose a minority is only listened to and tolerated if you are prejudiced in their favour already.
It's a shame that not all minorities are tolerated equally - or not tolerated equally perhaps.
I think there's a different tolerance in play if you're saying "I won't object to your icons and candles, if you leave me free to bang on about PSA and biblical inerrancy", and saying "I won't object to you being a woman/a gay man so long as I'm free to object to you being a bishop". I think the first is the kind of tolerance that the C of E is rightly famous for. The second is discrimination masquerading as tolerance.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Gwai has a point, and while Anglican intolerance in recent years has focussed on DH issues (and have I got stories!), I recall well enough the prayer book battles of but thirty years ago, when decision-makers worked to eradicate BCP practice and replace it with the BAS. There was enough pushback that the BCP kept a foothold, generally at early services, but (as a sort-of neutral at the time) I took note of the pursed lips (moue de comité was the bureaucratic term in Ottawa) and dismissive comments during discussions. While I had leaned toward the BAS cause for some time, my discomfort with the discourtesy to the minority fired up my underdog sympathy engine to the point that I would occasionally raise questions, only to receive comments suggesting that I had betrayed the Cause du Jour--- I soon found that I was no longer invited around for coffee after committee meetings. Such was their punishment!!! I was driven to the local coffeehouse for my apres-task-force comfort (where, in any case, the coffee was better and the barista wittier and better-looking than the working group chairperson).
Attending various diocesan committees during my synod-member days (before the pirates then in charge at S Vartan's turfed me out, primarily on DH grounds, as I was not sufficiently in sympathy with their viewpoint), I found the same opinion policing, rather too reminiscent of the cool-kids phenomenon of high school life. Why such negative karmatic energies should be enlisted in service of a Strategic Implementation Strategy Overview Planning Framework was beyond me, but perhaps my inability to appreciate this was a personal failing on my part.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
This is different from the position in the Roman Catholic church where priests and nuns even advocating changes in church policies can be slapped down pretty hard.
What are "church policies"?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I second Sebby's comment, SvitlanaV2, I felt it was very well expressed and insightful.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's a strange situation, because within recent memory CofE has projected the image of a thoroughly benign, almost self-effacing institution, with mild vicars, charming old churches, and a low-key attempt not to offend anyone. Of course, this wasn't the whole story, but it was the picture that many outsiders would have had.
This seems to be changing.
Whilst it was, and probably still is, to some extent true the difference may be more one of memory than of reality – in the 1950’s there were parishes where priests and some parishioners were at very public loggerheads (personal knowledge). Then there was Honest to God and the Bishop of Durham who caused such an uproar (rightly or wrongly) that some believed God was moved to hurl a thunderbolt to express his anger (three days late and 50 miles out – but then who says God has to be perfect)! Both were headline news in the press and on the telly for some time. quote:
It must be partly because the media has become more hostile to religion, and is more willing to highlight the gaps between society's secular values and the values of the CofE.
“More hostile” or “less obsequious”? Mainly the latter I suspect (as with other institutions).
”The gaps between society's secular values and the values of the CofE” 1) which values of what section of the CofE? And 2) you don’t think that the chasms between some of the values of different factions within the CofE have any bearing? As to the media’s part – that depends upon how much the media forms opinion and how much it reflects it for commercial success. The world has an appetite for 24 hour news, media organisations need to meet that appetite or lose out to competition and therefore matters (Rod Thomas perhaps?) which would have been ignored are now seized upon as “content”. This is not necessarily hostility - simply a consequence of how the media has to work within a capitalist society. Then there's a whole new comms world - the internet, with it's exhilarating freedoms and an immediacy that provides huge challenges to traditional news providers. quote:
Secondly, institutional religious decline and marginalisation create either defiance, which the media focuses on, or assimilation; the CofE has adopted both, which gives it the impression of being at war with itself, again creating a struggle that appeals to the media.
Making statements (such as gay bishops provided that they are celibate) shows a dedication to creating antagonism that only someone in an ivory tower could pursue - the media doesn't make this up (not this at least) they merely seize the opportunities given them by people who have traditionally been considered privileged (from the Fr. for "private law" i.e. not subject to the common law as I understand from Terry Pratchett). Members of the royal family, members of both houses of parliament including unelected bishops, judges, fifteen minute celebrities etc. etc. - all grist to the public's appetite if they give the media (and their advertisers) the oxygen of public interest. Don’t blame the media for the CofE's corporate stupidity.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Thanks for your comment, Gamaliel.
HughWillRidMee, I agree that agree that perceptions are often too crude to represent the reality!
I wouldn't deny that the CofE - and British Christianity more broadly - had quite a lot to deal with, internally as well as externally, in the 50s. Increased affluence, leisure opportunities and travel must have had an impact, as well as the 'serious' things such as theological disagreements and scientific and political developments.
quote:
”The gaps between society's secular values and the values of the CofE” 1) which values of what section of the CofE? And 2) you don’t think that the chasms between some of the values of different factions within the CofE have any bearing?
I suspect that all 'sections' of the CofE were beginning to see that there was less and less engagement between themselves and the wider culture. And as I said, the CofE's internal disagreements are likely to have created a negative image, especially once these disagreements had become public, via the media.
The media in the past may havebeen 'obsequious', but that probably wasn't the whole story. For a start, I imagine that in the past, more media people would have considered themselves to be part of the church than would be the case today. I.e., personal sensibilities would have had a part to play. Today, many journalists commenting on these issues are writing about something that they have little investment in.
In one sense, of course, the CofE should be grateful that its internal affairs are of interest to outsiders in a supposedly secular age. If the CofE is so utterly irrelevant, why would anyone feel the need to comment on women bishops or gay marriages (not) in parish churches, or anything else? Who cares? Someone clearly does.
quote:
Don’t blame the media for the CofE's corporate stupidity.
I do feel that some of the bishops 'speak out' less than effectively, and more than is wise. Considering that the CofE is the established church, and that most of these people have had an excellent education, you'd think they'd be a bit more media savvy, and more aware of public perception.
There SHOULD be tension between the church and the world, but from a Christian point of view, the tension needs to be fruitful. There has to be a limit to tolerance, but also a limit to antagonism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
The church is tolerant only towards those who do not challenge its security.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
One or two posts here have reminded me about intolerance in bygone years.
In the CofE with the advent of experimental services in the late 60s and 70s, there was an intolerance in many places towards those who wished for space for the 1662 BCP. On the other side there was an intolerance for these 'experimental' services and so on. The episcopate seemed intent on the marginalisation of the Prayer Book sorts in certain dioceses, and this gave rise to the Prayer Book Society. Interestingly, this particular intolerance has largely gone, and the best of the old and the best of the new became Common Worship. I suspect this has something to do with resources and the realisation that if a parish uses 1662 and it brings the money in, then all is good.
One huge change from the possible intolerence of the 1950s outlined in previous posts has been the gradual leaking away of the 'cultural Christian', the person who attended church - often weekly - but largely out of social and cultural reasons, perhaps Colonel Blimp who read the Second Lesson at matins or something. Such types, although they still exist in rural areas, find little need to attend these days, although some still do.
This has also had an effect on the attitide of the media to the church. Instead of some media types who were social Christians with at least some knowledge and experience of the church (although this is still true), there are increasing numbers of those who sign up to the secular programming (to use Rowan Williams' expression) or are plain clueless or see the church as malevolent. Outspoken bishops who are not briefed properly, or who chose to ignore advice, just look plain daft. George Carey was the obvious example; a combination of arrogance and ignorance.
Now there is a 'leaner and fitter' church (although lean doesn't necessarily mean fit ) of largely committed congregants rather than parishoners. Whether this is a good thing for a national church depends on one's point of view.
Personally, speaking in CofE terms, I think the lean and fit model is a cliche, and leads to a dangerous polarisation, less tolerance, and accelerated decline. Of course there are strong arguments about other denominations, the role of discipleship, the blood of the martyrs and so on, but a more flabby model of a national church, broad and welcoming, a sort of default setting (with the Arts and Crafts movement thrown in to use Ken's image) is one I find rather attractive. I suppose it still exists in our cathedrals (and one might point to them as a success story for various reasons) I was most heartened to hear Richard Dawkins refer to himself without any irony and with sincerity, as a cultural Anglican who valued deeply the role of his school chaplain at Oundle.
Please forgive rushed and ungrammtical post.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
womanspeak
Shipmate
# 15394
|
Posted
In the most populous Australian state, New South Wales, five of the seven diocese are, or recently have been experiencing the potentially 'intolerant' process of replacing their Bishops.
The importance of the influence of these diocesan Bishops on the tolerance of different expressions of Anglicanism within a Diocese can be seen in the fierce political battles of clergy and laity within some of these sees. Battle lines in some have been drawn along High Church Liturgical vs Evangelistic worship practices.
Hopefully these battles for leadership will not result in a winner take all outcome, but a via media which acknowledges the need to offer worship which resonates with traditionalists and the fresh expressions, the old timers and the formally unchurched.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
from the bush
Posts: 62 | From: rural australia | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I agree completely with the last post. I would only add that some parts of the Anglican Communion do not quite 'get' the fact that often what resonates with 'old timers' is possibly more what resonates with the formally unchurched.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I agree completely with the last post. I would only add that some parts of the Anglican Communion do not quite 'get' the fact that often what resonates with 'old timers' is possibly more what resonates with the formally unchurched.
Unfortunately as a strategy this approach has been tested and found lacking; it's the default strategy of the 'ordinary, middle of the road' parish - the sort that has steadily drifted nowhere.
Which isn't to say that there isn't a place for 1662 somewhere in the mix of a good sized parish, but to suggest that using it as the primary means of outreach to anyone under 60 is 'interesting'. I was about to say foolish - but actually there is an argument that it's SO alien to the experience of most that it can provide a touch of the mystery and numinous that the yuff church tends to lack; though if you are going to do that, doing it properly in the Orthodox tradition would be my recommendations. THEY know how to do liturgy ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Just not for every day...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
It was not suggesting 1662 at all.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Some parts of the Anglican Communion do not quite 'get' the fact that often what resonates with 'old timers' is possibly more what resonates with the formally unchurched.
I once attended a prep meeting for 'Back 2 Church Sunday', and was told that participating churches should stick to what they normally do on the day, rather than trying to be 'weird'. I took this to mean that fairly traditional churches should stick with their traditionalism for this kind of event, especially since returners would want to participate in something that they recognised.
I can see the logic in this, but I don't see much sign that this approach is effective with the unchurched. I'm not an Anglican, though, and it may be that most visitors at Anglican churches have expectations that because the CofE is the state church something relatively traditional (whatever that means) is what it SHOULD be providing.
(I'm talking about England, of course. I don't understand how Anglicanism and traditionalism are connected in other places.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The unchurched, by and large, have no uniform idea as to what will happen when they go to a service. Their knowledge of liturgy will likely be formed by a variously-formed mishmash of moments of televangelism captured while channel-surfing and of papal extravaganzas, perhaps tempered by a funeral or wedding which they had attended.
Their needs, and their comfort level, will vary from one individual to the next, and it would be (IMHO) foolish to generalize. Some will be nourished by the familiar sound of a guitar, others will be spiritually cheated by the absence of chant. Most will have no idea as to what is going on-- I will always remember explaining (sotto voce) a Mass in Spain to a well-educated and articulate junior professor at a reputable Canadian university, who had never attended a church service before(!).
Almost every newbie/liturgy virgin will enter a church a bit nervous, and rarely for casual reasons. They will quickly suss out if there is a lack of respect for factions or individuals, and if tolerance is extended only to some, and if the atmosphere is pervaded by unfairness and unkindness. That likely has more to do with whether or not they return than if our collects are Cranmerian, modern, or in Latin.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Almost every newbie/liturgy virgin will enter a church a bit nervous, and rarely for casual reasons. They will quickly suss out if there is a lack of respect for factions or individuals, and if tolerance is extended only to some, and if the atmosphere is pervaded by unfairness and unkindness. That likely has more to do with whether or not they return than if our collects are Cranmerian, modern, or in Latin.
I agree. Even many regular churchgoers don't notice, or at least care about, the details of worship. People who have never or rarely darkened the church doors will have a fairly minimal idea of what to expect. Any preconceptions are as likely to be based on chanting monks in a historical drama as American televangelists. As long as they see a warm and caring community going about their worship with integrity, that's all that matters at that stage.
If they are attracted enough to pursue it further, they may begin to feel their way to other expressions of worship. But attempting to second-guess what their preferences might be are a waste of time.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I agree that ultimately other things are much more important than worship style, but all else being equal, it's an area that every church needs to pay attention to. It's related to the mission of the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree that ultimately other things are much more important than worship style, but all else being equal, it's an area that every church needs to pay attention to. It's related to the mission of the church.
Not only related to, but at the heart of. I'm certainly not advocating an 'anything goes' approach to worship, particularly when it comes to attracting newcomers.
However, a church has got to be true to its traditions, its understanding, and its resources. If a congregation tries to put on a show, rather than perform its normal worship with integrity, it will repel rather than attract. Especially if that 'show' doesn't reflect the priorities and beliefs of that community.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Angloid
As I said,for events such as Back 2 Church Sunday it makes no sense to put on a show.
Nevertheless, some churches do choose to move on from their tradition on a more permanent basis, feeling that this will be more fruitful for their mission. The Baptists seem to be an interesting example of where this has happened on quite a large scale.
For the CofE, it does seem to be problematic, I admit. I do wonder if the CofE should simply stick to doing the 'old stuff', which they do so well, and leave newer denominations to do the weird and wacky things!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Angloid
As I said,for events such as Back 2 Church Sunday it makes no sense to put on a show.
Nevertheless, some churches do choose to move on from their tradition on a more permanent basis, feeling that this will be more fruitful for their mission. The Baptists seem to be an interesting example of where this has happened on quite a large scale.
For the CofE, it does seem to be problematic, I admit. I do wonder if the CofE should simply stick to doing the 'old stuff', which they do so well, and leave newer denominations to do the weird and wacky things!
Actually many low-church CoE churches DO more 'exciting' services. Not all CoE churches are 'traditional', not by a long shot.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TeaAddict
Apprentice
# 14946
|
Posted
The biggest problem as always with the Anglican church is that it just does not seem to know quite where it wants to be. It seems its perceived level of tolerance is as much to do with its lack of ability to make the changes it wants to make, partially out of a desire to be 'all things for all men'. This is not a problem for the Catholic churches and other traditional denomonations, where tradition is what is sought and is adhered to, and the followers accept and desire this. The C of E in particular also has the uncomfortable role of being an established religion in what is now very much a secular or multi-faith country. Despite some of its members arguing to the contrary, it does have to accommodate the views of the non church going public if it is to legitimately have a say in how this country is governed. The one benefit of being percieved as tolerant is that is should make the churches mission easier as it should be able to relate to a wide part of the communities it should be serving, but the lack of clear leadership means to many individual churches are off message, causing potential confusion about what the church is actually trying to say.
--------------------
In the interests of safety, please turn off common sense now.
Posts: 16 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If Anglican churches want to reach out to all, they need to remember that there are extrovert and introvert personalities. The extroverts will probably hanker after exciting experiences, with lots of variation and surprises, whereas the introverts will probably want something steady, reliable, quiet and timeless.
The difficulty these days, with thinly-stretched clergy, is that both types cannot always be catered for at every church.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually many low-church CoE churches DO more 'exciting' services. Not all CoE churches are 'traditional', not by a long shot.
That's what I was getting at; the CofE has moved on from tradition in many places, and this is what's 'problematic'. Tea Addict's response hints at this as well. Here on the Ship, one one senses a certain anxiety that the CofE is somehow losing its focus, leaning too far in the direction of trying to be 'exciting' instead of representing tradition in terms of church practice.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, some churches do choose to move on from their tradition on a more permanent basis, feeling that this will be more fruitful for their mission. The Baptists seem to be an interesting example of where this has happened on quite a large scale.
Baptists have moved on from their origins and are far more open to work with other churches. We've also become more open to different expressions of "church" possibly because we are neither a state church, nor are we subject to directions from a hierarchy. Each congregation can respond and react in whatever way it believes to be right.
One key component is that we actively seek and encourage participation from everyone at every level of church life. Our local church has regular congregational forums aside from members' gatherings and discusses key issues in home groups and in other times together.
The last approach reflects the fact that while our practice and expression may have changed, our basic values haven't. We have simply found flexible ways to be church around those basic tenets. We haven't (yet) thrown the baby out of the bathwater in the drive for relevance, nor have we allowed our past to control us.
There are exceptions to this of course but baptist churches do seem to be attractive places to many people from a multitude of faith and social backgrounds. In a baptist church, all have a role in determining together what God is saying and how that is to be worked out. Authority is held lightly where it works best.
Yes, we are pretty much (90 - 95% of us I suppose), old style evangelicals in the sense of believing that to have a faith matters in what we believe and how we express it - and that is based on the strong tradition of the bible. Yes we do have statements of belief in most of our church constitutions and so, yes, we can be seen as exclusive with our idea of "membership." But that's best seen as a visible expression of one's desire to identify with God in a particular group of people.
[ 22. January 2013, 08:20: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
